tv [untitled] December 13, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PST
coons on your english guide. it is very valuable. i want to read one of the most valuable sections. free translation and interpretation services -- it is very important for parents, families who are listening or watching tv to know that all of the families are entitled to requesting individual translation or interpretation. there is a form that is available to schools and on the sfusd web site to make that request. it does come to the central office. they can also make compliance with the school site cannot provide translation services. we have heard that a couple of times in public comment tonight. we have a policy that non- district qualified interpreters, including students and other children, may not be used for interpretation except in emergencies.
that is very important that it be in the vault so that families are aware of this policy as a resource. we want to meet as much of the demand as we can. i am also concerned about inclusion in our language programs. west oral elementary has done a great job of incorporating the special needs students into their curriculum. into their student body. i wanted to ask the superintendent where this discussion belongs about how to address the needs of english learners and special education needs. >> when we looked at revamping special ed, that was a concern of ours as well. it is going to be coming back. the new director that we are hiring is actually bilingual. he has worked a lot with these
types of issues. the timing could not be better for us in that sense. the person coming has a lot of experience in running both special ed and bilingual programs in california. i think she will be a real value for us at this juncture to take it to the next level. timing is everything. commissioner maufas: reeling a rotation of committees that will report to the board. we will definitely keep in mind the comments of commissioner maufas. i want to thank you for your comments. commissioner norton: i want to thank you for your service and the report. i really appreciate some of the discussion about kids who are duel identified as e.l. and special ed.
there is much more thinking on about this than there was previously. my daughter was one of those discouraged from learning a second language because she was identified as special ed. i also wanted to suggest that this would be a -- it would be great for the bcc to team up with special ed. this is a deep concern of theirs as well. a number of their members are non-english speaking for bilingual. there could be a real -- some great things could come out of collaborating with that committed. i can put you in touch with the chair of the committee and there may be some ways to collaborate on the work that you both are doing. >> i think that the special ed e.l. reclassification process
that we develop was an ability to highlight the work of parent advocacy coupled with sentences in a unified school district response. and looking at what other districts are doing. yolanda rivera was very involved in that. is there something similar to this for special and families? -- for special ed families? question there is special material on-line and is going to be translated. it is not quite as nice. >> for those people who are not on-line, are there are copies available? >> i believe there are. richard knows. >> thank you. it is online at this point, but
it is undergoing some more revisions appear in -- undergoing some more revisions. it is a work in progress. as you know, the document is only as good as how accurate it is. you will be seeing that and multiple languages very soon. we are in the process of finalizing the special ed. president mendoza: my thanks as well. i remember when this used to be a one-pager that did not make a whole lot of sense. we did not died deeply enough on how to get our english language learners the services and support that they need. thank you very much. i want to appreciate a lot of the work that you have been doing around our families and the immersion programs, making sure there are part of the conversation. we have changed a lot of our
policies and have clarified a lot of our policies and published a lot of our policies because of the work that the bcc has done. i'm curious -- this is translated in english, spanish, and chinese. are those the three languages? and vietnamese as well? wonderful. is this also on our web site? or is it going on to our web site? >> it should be available at our website. teh -- the e.l.l. staff is labeling these so they can go out to every family in the next couple of weeks. president mendoza: this is really terrific and we appreciate your service, time, and energy that you put in this and your commitment to the committee.
>> everybody forgets that it is a hard job, but it is for the children. they teach me everything. i say thank you to the interpreters. president mendoza: yes, thank you to our translation department. >> i should tell this committee that i have a staff volunteered. one of the biggest concerns i have with all our programs all our language friends in cedras's ago, and it is a real concern of mine, i have spent some time working with e.l.l. issues, my
biggest concern is are we really serving the needs of the kids in these programs or are these programs just serving -- it is great that people are learning in every language. i applaud that and think it is valuable. but we also need to make sure that the programs are there to serve the e.l.l. kids. we need to make sure they are learning and transitioning at the levels they need to be at a. how much time are they getting to learn english? those are issues -- i have been a bilingual educator since 1975. we have had these battles for a long time. the bottom line is that if they are not serving that purpose, then we have to revamp our programs. that is something i will tell you we are working closely with other institutions to review our data and we may have to look at that and modify what we do and how we do it because ultimately, it is about the kids being
successful. if we are not want to do that, that is one of the reasons why, as all of you know, the initiative of winter where people started questioning if the kids are actually progressing, are they actually doing what they're supposed to be doing? i want to be the district that stands up and says, and both e.l.l. kids and kids in the immersion program are learning at the same levels. for sixth grade and upper grades, they are functioning at the same level academically at both languages. that has got to be a revolt. -- our goal. that is something we need to be monitoring and pushing on. i will make sure that we are looking at that. >> thank-you very much.
that is why we are continuing to ask for real research about how students are doing in our english hathaway's. we have limited resources. we have limited teacher and monetary resources. we need to get the best thing for our money. the first district to push for start to become translated is a huge step forward for our district. i am proud to say our district did. also, an aging parents and how proud are we of our parents who are stepping up and voicing their concerns, requiring that the children are getting their educational rights met? >> i want to take you back on
the music. i want to give you a brief history of the advocacy. we have a translation office, but it is severely underfunded before and even now. it took a group of parents being spearheaded by christina wong, working for affirmative action, they did a survey and a study called "lost without translation." they interviewed many parents who were not english-speaking and did a study on it. it was from that survey and the study's findings that cristina wong @ chinese conservative action along with other parents advocated for more transition services -- for more translation services. we only see now that how many more parents they have been able
to reach through this expansion of our translation program. i want to thank you all for the advocacy that you give us. we have talked about the time and what we do with your research. that advocacy for our students and parents is tremendous. i meet with my bcc reps on a regular basis to find out about what the committee has been doing. every time i hear from them about the concerns about are we serving our english language lerner's the best that we can? that comes back constantly. the advocacy of this body -- i just want to say thank you. it is a great gift to all of our e.l.l. students and parents. president mendoza: thank you your much.
-- thank you very much. the next item is any appointments by the board members. do you have any appointments? >> i do. i would like to appoint florez to the bcc. she works with us, one student, and i apologize to the bcc for the length of time it is taking me to get to these appointments. i do have one more. president mendoza: and she is working where? >> she is at john pissarro. president mendoza: item l,
special orders of business. i need a motion and a second. thank you. >> good evening. i am golden. it has been a very long agenda. i'm here to present a report that i cannot put a picture to. is that not exciting? for those of you that may not remember the california government code, section 66001, and section 66006 requires california school districts that can collect developer impact fees to report on those impact fees every year and to present a
projected plan which can be revised and changed as to what we project we might be spending on developer impact fees that are collected over a five-year period. this is a report that the district has not been providing for a number of years. for those of you that my remember, there was some class action litigation, a settlement. the district things it is important we bring this report for. so that we fulfill our commitments under the government code. it is essentially an audit performed by an outside consultant on the expenditures of developer fees as well. included in your package is the report on the collection of a developer impact fees. you will notice, historically, going back 10 years, the district has collected, on
average, $7 million-$8 million per year on developing -- on developer impact fees until three years ago when the bottom fell out on the world economy. as of last year, recollected about $1.5 million. it is interesting to note -- it is an indicator of the upward trend of the economy moving in a positive direction in san francisco that it this year we collected slightly over $3 million carried that tells you that there were either 50% more building permit applications filed or as a significant number of larger applications that were filed. that is a good of word trend for the city and for us as well, if we can get back on target. some of those impact fees were spent on the design and construction of the brand new tech 21 building at john
o'connell, which a number of u.n. to the grand opening last week. it was a very successful day. a number of dollars were spent over the summer to recreate facilities and programs to accommodate what had happened at horace mann, bryant, and when a vista -- and buena vista because of changes in school locations. we have a continuing need to do it. the state has allowed us, over the course of this year, to look at whether we are going to raise those rates, which went require us to do -- which would require us to do an additional study. we are going to look at it to see if we can raise the rates. if there are any questions, i would be happy to answer them. essentially, we are requesting
the board adopt the report that there are no findings, positive or negative, strictly a report of moneys collected, money is spent, and what we have in the bank. i would be happy to answer questions. >> was this one of the special items you want to speak on, mr. kelly? i have no public speakers. comments from the board? vice president yee: i have a question on the rate we are collecting. what is it and what are you thinking about in terms of a potential increase? >> first of all, we do not set the maximum increase. the state actually sets what the maximum amount would indeed. we need to do an impact study, which would demonstrate the
growth of housing units in san francisco from summer between what we charge now and the maximum that is set. if there and in -- if there is an increase, it would fall between that range. i cannot recall what the new maximum would be. we are currently collecting something like $2.24 per square foot of residential, $0.18 for commeric -- for commercial. vice president yee: what would trigger the increase? i'm trying to get a sense of how that is done. >> the fee would demonstrate that there is significant residential growth.
and impact to those things which would affect our schools and our needs to do things either with new schools or within our schools to accommodate that growth. that is what the study would have to demonstrate a. if it demonstrated a need in excess of what we are currently collecting, then we could raise the rates. if it went the other way, our rates would be lowered. vice president yee: so for treasure island or mission bay or whatever, this starts ramping up more. it is probably going to help us collect more fees, percentage- wise? >> those developments, no matter what the rates were, would collect significant fees. also, for any high-rise construction in san francisco or large residential and commercial
developments throughout the city, on top of remodeling homes, collects significant change for us. if you look at the developer impact fees collected throughout the city, the school district is only about 5% of those fees on a citywide basis. to us, it is a significant amount. vice president yee: thank you. >> according to your report on page 5, i see that for this past year, we collected $3.75 million. we had an ending balance of $19.8 million. that is good news. table 4 lists $287 million worth of need.
that is where the $19 million in our balance can only be used to address the needs listed in table four? >> table for addresses a wide variety of things. the only column that really counts for developer impact fees would be the first column, $86 million. each of those projects that we list in table four, some of them have a funding component beyond developer fees. for instance, if you were to look at the projection of the school of the arts at 135 van ness, if we anticipate $35 million from developer fees, there might be $30 million from general obligation bonds. we know that is true. $15 million from prop a 2003 and 2006. we expect there might be some state funding and there might be funds from something else.
we might get a donation of $37 million. that is a $160 million project. these are projections. the $287 million on the far right is all of those expenses together. >> what are the purposes for which the $19 million can be used? >> the way the developer in language is structured, as with all funding language, there is a certain amorphous flexibility. in general, it is for projects that have a relation or direct correlation to new programs and new growth, particularly an increase of students writ -- particularly an increase in students. that is a different interpretation for an urban district that is not building new schools but is eligible to collect developer fees for a school district out in the central valley that is
collecting impact fees to construct a new school. we have used it to expand and develop new programs, we have used it to work on the deaf program, the tech 21 program, we built a new middle school with complete developer impact fee money. there is a wide range of continuing abuses. we project that if we are to build a new school out where lennar is, we would have a and very little new school state eligibility in. those fees would have a direct relation to building that school. potentially, the same thing could be true at mission bay. president mendoza: any other questions?
commissioner fewer: 10 these funds be used to building a new and willie brown -- a new will ie brown? >> this would be one of the available funding sources that we could bridge with. president mendoza: if there are no other questions, did you read the recommendation into the record? and then roll call. >> the subject is reviewing an adoption of the annual five-year report relating to the collection and expenditure of developer fees and the requested action is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee annual and five-year reports for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2011. the attached report, dated
november 28, a 2011, relates to the collection and expenditure of developer fees. it was prepared for the district by the dolinka group. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: yes. president mendoza: yes. thank you. do not spend it all in one place. the next item is the adoption of the instructional calendar for the 2012-2013 school year. a reading of the recommendation. >> good evening. this order of business concerns
our instructional calendar for the 2012, 2013 school year. the requested action is that the board adopts the 2012-2013 instructional calendar. i want to thank all of our labor partners and all of our parent organizations, especially parents for public schools, the pta, and new to our process this year was city partners from rec and park who participated in the discussion. there was a lot of discussion. pros and cons, back and forth, many different versions of the calendar. this seems to have been the one that most of the faults could live with. i will frame it in that perspective. i am ready to answer any questions that the commissioners may have on the calendar. president mendoza: we have won
public comment. mr. kelly. >> good evening and congratulations, commissioner wynns, on your new election. i have been waiting a long time to come up and say that. this is the calendar and that came out as a consensus of all of those groups. calendar negotiations, as we know, are a mandatory subject of negotiations with the union. in the spirit of making sure that this works for everybody, both the district and the union had invited in all of the other partners in that mr. ruiz mentioned. it is significant that it is a consensus of all of those parties that came to this calendar. i am appreciative that this is the one that you have before you and i hope that you adopted tonight.
thank you. president mendoza: comments by the board? superintendent? ok. the chief of staff has asked if we were starting school in july. [laughter] that gradually eliminates the summer. roll call, please. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: aye. president mendoza: yes. thank you for all of your hard work on that. there is a lot of it -- i know there was a lot of back and forth. we now have the sunshining of two proposals.